September 26, 2005

Not Guilty ... Reason ... Insanity

You read about trials in which the accused, usually charged with heinous crimes, are trying to prove they are not guilty by reason of insanity. In a less-than-five-minute hearing in open court, after much discussion with the judge and the prosecutrix, my client was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Was justice done? I hope so.

But here's the bigger question. My client didn't want to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. She wanted to plead not guilty and have a trial. As her lawyer, was I supposed to do what she wanted me to do? Or was I supposed to do what I thought was best for her under the circumstances, taking into account the opinions of three shrinks, her opinion, thoughts, and feelings be damned?

Sometimes, I hate this job.

Posted by Bill at September 26, 2005 11:50 PM
Comments

I think you did good, Bill.

Riding the work the other morning, I heard the defense arguments for Lynndie England. Her defense argued she was weak-minded (learning disabilities) and taken advantage of by a boyfriend bent on mistreating the detainees.

Uh huh.

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie at September 27, 2005 04:34 PM

I think one of the surest signs of insanity is that the client does not want you to plead insanity....I agree with Cowtown Pattie: you did the right thing. Woman probably needs to be institutionalized.

As for Lyndie: I can half buy her story. How many young people have been lured into lapses by their glands? Still, I know one sociopath who tries to use ADD to justify his sexual predation.

Posted by: Joel at September 28, 2005 04:30 AM

Lawyers must be experts in every issue they discuss. If the case is about plumbing, they're expert plumbers. If it's about dna testing, they're dna experts. If it's about competency, they're psychiatrists. There's no line between "sane" and "otherwise." If you can listen to her story and it makes sense, giving her a colorable defense, then I think you need to present it on her behalf. if your expert opinion is that you don't buy it and neither will a jury of her peers, you are obliged to defend her as best you can in spite of her own erroneous strategic suggestions.

if they could only be "guilty but incompetent." Then again, who would remain free?

Posted by: dan at September 29, 2005 01:41 PM